Borlaug didn’t do GMOs

Letters, Week of Nov. 12

Transition for all people

(Re: “Planet of
insects,” cover story, Oct. 22.) Thank you for the article about
relocalization, community, skill-building and energy independence. I am
grateful to see the philosophies and practices of Transition Colorado
featured in the Boulder Weekly. I was even more excitedto see the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center included in this piece.

One
of the reasons I so appreciate the “Transition Movement” is because of
its potential agency for social justice. At the same time I also
question how the means and ends of this “movement” assemble barriers
and etch creases of marginalization, structurally — even if
unintentionally — supporting injustice by focusing on the needs of
privileged peoples and neglecting those needs, and skills, of more
underprivileged peoples. These needs and skills are not nonexistent —
they are silenced and made invisible.

What
role does Transition play in this silencing, what role would it like to
play, and what role does it need to play? I read a lot of words such as
“community” and “basic human connections,” but nothing of power,
privilege, domination and oppression. Does Transition think “sharing
pie” dissolves such deeply rooted and harmful realities? Is avoidance
an option? For whom?

I
would love to see Transition Colorado host anti-racism trainings and
bystander intervention trainings. That seems like the kind of
re-skilling we need here in Boulder! Are Transition Communities safe or
hostile for people of color, LGBTQI folk? And what about the rights and
needs of undocumented peoples? (Note to the writers and editors:
careful of your usage of the word “citizens.” Do you mean to exclude
residents and the 12 million undocumented people in the U.S.?) I cannot
see how a “Transition Movement” can function within this country’s
broken immigration system.

I
am sure many of the readers and hopefully all of the Transition
supporters can see the links between agriculture, the food industry —
and thus Transition’s focus of local food and economic self-sufficiency
— and immigrant rights. We are all connected to these faulty and
harmful policies by what we put in our mouths, but changing what and
how we eat will not by itself change the lives of those invisibilized
and dehumanized. Is “Transition” (the verb) feasible without these
changes? What conditions prevent participation? And again, what is
Transition’s role in these conditions?

I
would like to see orientations towards freedom, justice, liberty and
equality — such as active movement for and actualization of changes in
federal immigration policy and public opinion — directly included in
the rhetoric and activities of Transition. What about partnering with
an organization such as Reform Immigration for America? Colorado
Immigrant Rights Coalition? Intercambio de Comunidades? ¿Hablan
español? Ever consider collaborating with Moving to End Sexual Assault
or Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence?

I
am critical because I am supportive — it would be quite easy for me to
suffocate word limits crying within the dysfunctions and crises
Transition passionately toils to heal, exalting praises for the already
vibrant efforts of the principles and people of the “movement,”
reiterating what is already made known. At this point, however, I must
respect my internal erk that whizzes when I hear, read or talk
about anything “Transition,” voicing this shared and potentially
ignorant aversion as a petition for organizational and collective
questioning. I also understand that this organization is probably, like
most, understaffed and underfunded, which poses challenges for outreach
and integration but is no excuse for such a limited pulse. While you
may hold the values of social and environmental justice, we have yet to
overtly see these values demonstrated or given priority. In the
article, cofounder of Transition Colorado Michael Brownlee mentions
freedom — I ask, freedom for whom? Freedom cannot only be an outcome,
but must also be fundamental method of the “movement,” do you agree? Of
course, one organization can’t address every issue, and at the same
time, how and when can we see represented the interconnectedness that
you are advocating (in theory)? From the article Brownlee states: “It’s
[Transition Colorado] a catalytic force in the community to inspire and
motivate people to do exactly the kind of things that we’re talking
about. You can’t do it for them, but you can provide them some access.”
Can you? And can we?

True,
as individuals and a community we must take initiative in preference to
relying on others — officials, organizations, etc. — to “do things for
us” (I hope to be encouraging myself and the public in these
statements, not just leaders in the “movement”). My expectation is that
Transition as an organization can be, as Brownlee avows, an accessible
and conceivably constructive and proactive resource for more holistic
and realistic reconnectings, for and with all people. This, as I see
it, enables the movement.

Emily Zisette/Boulder

Boulder Weekly welcomes
your e-mail correspondence. Letters must not exceed 400 words and
should include your name, address and telephone number for
verification. Addresses will not be published. We do not publish
anonymous letters or those signed with pseudonyms. Letters become the
property of Boulder Weekly and will be published on our website.